Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
1189

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
I didn’t read through any post, but I just have one question that I pose to all anti-gay marriage proponents.

How can gay marriage be illegal on the grounds that it is not moral based on Christian beliefs when there is a clear seperation of church and state in the United States? “Protecting the institution of marriage,” as the Republicans put it in their platform, is a clear violation of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT–the institution of marriage they speak of is clearly related to the Christian institution of marriage. This flies straight in the face of the 1st amendment and what John Adams calls seperation of church.

N E W S F L A S H ! ! !

This country was founded on Christian principles by Christian men. There is no proof that the founders of our country intended for the constitution to enable and protect gay marriage, because THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID NOT INTEND FOR GAYS TO BE GETTING MARRIED.[/quote]

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.

1190

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
I didn’t read through any post, but I just have one question that I pose to all anti-gay marriage proponents.

How can gay marriage be illegal on the grounds that it is not moral based on Christian beliefs when there is a clear seperation of church and state in the United States? “Protecting the institution of marriage,” as the Republicans put it in their platform, is a clear violation of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT–the institution of marriage they speak of is clearly related to the Christian institution of marriage. This flies straight in the face of the 1st amendment and what John Adams calls seperation of church.[/quote]

Well, I’m not against gay civil unions. But I get the sense that you don’t understand your history or the constitution. What’s commonly understood as separation of church and state is explicitly addressed in the constitution. One of them is the establishment clause. I forget the other. But the basic purpose was to forbid a government-mandated religion and to prevent government decisions being made by religious officials or for relgious reasons. The other was to ensure free relgious expression. The term separation of church and state comes from a judicial interpreation where a justice used the words ‘a wall of separation’ in interpreting the appliaction of those clauses. The strictness we attach is not mandated by the constitution.

Personally, I have no problem with it except in cases where it gets unecessarily ridiculous such as complaints about calling something Christmas break as opposed to witner break or having In God We Trust on our coins. That’s just stupid. In any case, their is legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage currently extends to heterosexual couples who pruport to be in a committed relationship and are their for given particular rights and benefits. It need not be connected to marriage under god. Personally I support civil unions but not marriage. But denying the legal rights heterosexual couples have to homsexuals is not unconstitutional under our current framework. Marriage is not addressed under the constitution at all. It has simply existed and is codified in law but not constitutionally. Nor is ‘protecting the institution of marriage’ barred by the so-called separation of church and state. You can bettr believe the more liberal democrats would be making a fuss if it were

1191

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

N E W S F L A S H ! ! !

This country was founded on Christian principles by Christian men. There is no proof that the founders of our country intended for the constitution to enable and protect gay marriage, because THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID NOT INTEND FOR GAYS TO BE GETTING MARRIED.

N E W S F L A S H ! ! !

It’s not about what they intended or didn’t intend, it’s about what’s in the LAW, and the LAW says that there is a S E P E R A T I O N O F C H U R C H A N D S T A T E. Is that how you speak in real life too, Ivan? Listen, Ivan, I hate to rag on you cuz you have a cool nick, but the law states that there is a seperation of church and state, and upholding “the institution of marriage” and not allowing gays to marry is in clear violation of this, as it is based purely on Christian marriage beliefs. There are many other institutions of marriage where marriage is not defined by a union between a man and a woman. And what the fuck is up with conservatives claiming this will be the downfall of civilization? Have you looked at the media lately? Oh yes, two gays who love each other marrying will fuck us all, it’s not the thousands of week-long marriage fuckfests that celebrities engage in. It’s not the rising teen pregnancy rates. It’s gay marriage. Lord have mercy on us all!

As for you other three arguments, I will only respond to them because I am procrastinating writing a midterm paper.

“1) Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK, even though the facts and statistics show otherwise. Although this is happening right now, morally minded parents and teacher have a say in it. They can say “No, we don’t want this.” If gay marriage is legal, the parents have a much smaller say in the matter.”

Who says gay marriage is wrong? Once again, this is a Christian belief (and Islam), and enforcing it based on the idea that it is “wrong” is a violation of the 1st amendment. And if I hear one more person say “Then who says killing someone or raping someone is wrong?” I’m going to shoot you. The Constitution firmly states the things that every US citizen is entitled to, such as life, liberty, equal education, no discrimination, etc.

Your 2nd and 3rd arguments assume one thing: that because gay marriage is illegal, no one is gay. Or that no one abducts and rapes little boys. Have you heard of a sect of men called “priests” lately? If anything, making gay marriage legal will reduce pedophelia, as a result of less frustration with this fucked up system. And point me to these facts that AIDS and HIV are more carried in gay men? Do you still live in the 80’s?

Ivan, I think you need a N E W S F L A S H ! ! ![/quote]

Yes, I do have a pretty cool nickname. Thanks for noticing.

As far as disagreeing with gay marriage because of religious beliefs, that is where you are wrong. I do not disagree with Gay marriage based on religious beliefs - I disagree with it based on moral obligation.

So, as far as separation of church and state goes, it doesn’t have any bearing on this issue. It is a moral issue. And, so many people here seem to forget the implications of such an action - I merely want to show people that there is more at stake than just a couple of guys who want to screw each other.

How do I speak in real life, you ask? Dude, this is real life. I think you need a reality check.

1192

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK, even though the facts and statistics show otherwise. Although this is happening right now, morally minded parents and teacher have a say in it. They can say “No, we don’t want this.” If gay marriage is legal, the parents have a much smaller say in the matter.

  2. Your health insurance costs would go up. The facts presented in this thread show that gays are a much larger spreader of HIV and AIDS than heteros. Gay marriage would lead the common person to believe homosexuality is ok (e.g., it is legal, so it must be ok), and it is reasonable to believe more people would “try it out”. More gay sex = more AIDS = more health care costs.

  3. The number of pedophiles in the country would likely increase. Ever notice that we see a heck of a lot of gay men abducting and murdering little boys? Don’t be surprised to see more.

more to come… [/quote]

My God. Who are they going to be spreading disease to? EACH OTHER. What a dumbass. Can’t see how it’s going to affect my health insurance anyone. I don’t pay a smoker’s health insurance rate because my neighbor smokes. And exactly how is letting gay guys get married going to increase pedophillia. Maybe they’ll actually leave the priesthood and stop molesting young boys and have sex with each other. Wouldn’t that be nice. And homosexuality is legal. And so is homosexual sex. NEWSFLASH; The sodomoy laws were ruled unconstiutional. The only thing that’s not legal is civil unions (and the accompanied rights such as tax breaks or letting one gay partner visit the other in the hosptial). Keep talking: taking a line from Ann Coulter, I love debating with people stupider than me.

1193

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.[/quote]

Not true. Many of our founders did have a problem with slavery. But, the issue they were dealing with when our country was founded was a departure from English suppression.

Things like this 3/5 clause are political compromises. How else do you think they say “Gosh, I think a black is worth 60% of a white man.” Without writing a reseach paper on the subject, I can guess that lots of factors played into this including (but not limited to) political power, financial power (ability to buy slaves/sway populus), and moral values.

Maybe the people who claim to be “Good Christians” should start getting their information from the bible instead of liberal universities.

1194

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I also have to tell you Zeb that I was a psych major. This is one pyschiatric sutdy. The vast majority of psychiatrists disagree with this guy and view his as a crackpot.

The APA is politically correct-It’s not nearly as easy to perform such studies over the past 15 years as you are attacked by claiming anything other than the politically correct party line.

By the way there many studies which demonstrate that homosexuals can change. Spitzer only represents one.

They are far more interested a politics than they are in helping people.
[/quote]

So you say

1195

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Perhaps what you are so quick to write off as an abomination might be what helps save the planet thousands of years from now.

You know you might have something there.

I have presented many good theroies on why people develop same sex attraction. And so far there is no proof that it is genetic.

I’ve also shown many many statistics which seem to demonstrate that same sex attraction can be changed if the person really wants to change.

But then if everyone changed who would be around to save the planet?

[/quote]

Did you respond to even one point made? What the hell are you talking about? Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.

1196

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Perhaps what you are so quick to write off as an abomination might be what helps save the planet thousands of years from now.

You know you might have something there.

I have presented many good theroies on why people develop same sex attraction. And so far there is no proof that it is genetic.

I’ve also shown many many statistics which seem to demonstrate that same sex attraction can be changed if the person really wants to change.

But then if everyone changed who would be around to save the planet?

Did you respond to even one point made? What the hell are you talking about? Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.[/quote]

There actually is a lot of proof. there are brain scans showing difference in the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Unlike Zeb, I just don’t have time to go searching for it

1197

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.

Not true. Many of our founders did have a problem with slavery. But, the issue they were dealing with when our country was founded was a departure from English suppression.

Things like this 3/5 clause are political compromises. How else do you think they say “Gosh, I think a black is worth 60% of a white man.” Without writing a reseach paper on the subject, I can guess that lots of factors played into this including (but not limited to) political power, financial power (ability to buy slaves/sway populus), and moral values.

Maybe the people who claim to be “Good Christians” should start getting their information from the bible instead of liberal universities.[/quote]

You’re exactly right. Some did have a problem with it. But not enough to make an issue out of it. Perhaps legitimately out of fear about making it an issue precluding the establishment of the union. And not enough to prevent them from owning slaves themselves. Bowing to political realities as opposed to attempting to challenge them does not make something right. You never know until you try. And last time I checked, the Bible said nothing about slavery in America.

1198

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.[/quote]

You know where I stand on the issue:

  1. I have no idea how or why people become gay, but resent various liberal groups saying “they are born that way” as if it’s fact.

  2. I have presented various pieces of information and statistics which demonstrate that gays are able to change if they are motivated.

  3. I have further presented information which clearly demonstrates that the gay lifestyle is indeed unhealthy.

1199

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
I didn’t read through any post, but I just have one question that I pose to all anti-gay marriage proponents.

How can gay marriage be illegal on the grounds that it is not moral based on Christian beliefs when there is a clear seperation of church and state in the United States? “Protecting the institution of marriage,” as the Republicans put it in their platform, is a clear violation of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT–the institution of marriage they speak of is clearly related to the Christian institution of marriage. This flies straight in the face of the 1st amendment and what John Adams calls seperation of church.

N E W S F L A S H ! ! !

This country was founded on Christian principles by Christian men. There is no proof that the founders of our country intended for the constitution to enable and protect gay marriage, because THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID NOT INTEND FOR GAYS TO BE GETTING MARRIED.[/quote]

You have NO idea what the founders wanted re: gay marriage. Don’t speak for them.

1200

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.

You know where I stand on the issue:

  1. I have no idea how or why people become gay, but resent various liberal groups saying “they are born that way” as if it’s fact.

  2. I have presented various pieces of information and statistics which demonstrate that gays are able to change if they are motivated.

  3. I have further presented information which clearly demonstrates that the gay lifestyle is indeed unhealthy.

[/quote]

But, black men die (on average) 14 years before white men. They are also at a higher risk to be smokers, drinkers, or become incarcerated.

Is, therefore, the black “lifestyle” unhealthy and something to change. (Assuming, obvioulsy, that said black men are "motivated.)

1201

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.

You know where I stand on the issue:

  1. I have no idea how or why people become gay, but resent various liberal groups saying “they are born that way” as if it’s fact.

  2. I have presented various pieces of information and statistics which demonstrate that gays are able to change if they are motivated.

  3. I have further presented information which clearly demonstrates that the gay lifestyle is indeed unhealthy.

But, black men die (on average) 14 years before white men. They are also at a higher risk to be smokers, drinkers, or become incarcerated.

Is, therefore, the black “lifestyle” unhealthy and something to change. (Assuming, obvioulsy, that said black men are "motivated.)
[/quote]

Being black is genetic and no more dangerous than being white or asian. While there are some disorders that effect each race differently, that is not the question.

I would guess that a contributing factor in the shorter black life span is poverty. If that is the case would you encourage or discourage blacks to come out of poverty?

I think we need to assist any group who has obvious disadvantages below the national average.

Those who participate in same sex activity are displaying a (ready for the word again) BEHAVIOR which is apparently dangerous (looking at all of the statistics).

(yawn)

1202

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.

Not true. Many of our founders did have a problem with slavery. But, the issue they were dealing with when our country was founded was a departure from English suppression.

Things like this 3/5 clause are political compromises. How else do you think they say “Gosh, I think a black is worth 60% of a white man.” Without writing a reseach paper on the subject, I can guess that lots of factors played into this including (but not limited to) political power, financial power (ability to buy slaves/sway populus), and moral values.

Maybe the people who claim to be “Good Christians” should start getting their information from the bible instead of liberal universities.

You’re exactly right. Some did have a problem with it. But not enough to make an issue out of it. Perhaps legitimately out of fear about making it an issue precluding the establishment of the union. And not enough to prevent them from owning slaves themselves. Bowing to political realities as opposed to attempting to challenge them does not make something right. You never know until you try. And last time I checked, the Bible said nothing about slavery in America.
[/quote]

I thought we were talking about gay marriage here?

In regards to slavery, I am sure it would have been a huge issue getting all the colonies on board with the revolution if slavery was made an issue. So, it wansn’t. But, that’s a different story.

BTW - have you read the bible? I mean the whole thing?

1203

[quote]harris447 wrote:

You have NO idea what the founders wanted re: gay marriage. Don’t speak for them.
[/quote]

Eh, I’m fairly sure the founders would not have wanted gay marriage. However that does not mean we should be beholden to their viewpoints hundreds of years later. They were great men but only men. And not capable of forseeing what we would be faced with hundreds of years later. There’s a reason that the constitution’s viewed as a fluid and living document

1204

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK, even though the facts and statistics show otherwise. Although this is happening right now, morally minded parents and teacher have a say in it. They can say “No, we don’t want this.” If gay marriage is legal, the parents have a much smaller say in the matter.

  2. Your health insurance costs would go up. The facts presented in this thread show that gays are a much larger spreader of HIV and AIDS than heteros. Gay marriage would lead the common person to believe homosexuality is ok (e.g., it is legal, so it must be ok), and it is reasonable to believe more people would “try it out”. More gay sex = more AIDS = more health care costs.

  3. The number of pedophiles in the country would likely increase. Ever notice that we see a heck of a lot of gay men abducting and murdering little boys? Don’t be surprised to see more.

more to come…

My God. Who are they going to be spreading disease to? EACH OTHER. What a dumbass. Can’t see how it’s going to affect my health insurance anyone. I don’t pay a smoker’s health insurance rate because my neighbor smokes. And exactly how is letting gay guys get married going to increase pedophillia. Maybe they’ll actually leave the priesthood and stop molesting young boys and have sex with each other. Wouldn’t that be nice. And homosexuality is legal. And so is homosexual sex. NEWSFLASH; The sodomoy laws were ruled unconstiutional. The only thing that’s not legal is civil unions (and the accompanied rights such as tax breaks or letting one gay partner visit the other in the hosptial). Keep talking: taking a line from Ann Coulter, I love debating with people stupider than me.[/quote]

Wow - I was thinking about Ann when I was writing about you. Sadly, I am sure I am not stupider than you. But, please, continue with the insults. It shows your intellect.

You are unable to see the forest through the trees, brook. You look at only one issue here, when, in fact this issue is about more than men marrying men and women marrying women. The impact of this issue is bigger than you can imagine.

And, don’t call on God. I doubt He would answer you at this stage in your life.

1205

If gay marriages were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK, even though the facts and statistics show otherwise. Although this is happening right now, morally minded parents and teacher have a say in it. They can say “No, we don’t want this.” If gay marriage is legal, the parents have a much smaller say in the matter.

  2. Your health insurance costs would go up. The facts presented in this thread show that gays are a much larger spreader of HIV and AIDS than heteros. Gay marriage would lead the common person to believe homosexuality is ok (e.g., it is legal, so it must be ok), and it is reasonable to believe more people would “try it out”.

More gay sex = more AIDS = more health care costs. Anyone who believe’s that they don’t pay health care for the poor, sick, and downtrodden are living in fantasy land. We all pay in our premium, office visit fees, and taxes.

  1. The number of pedophiles in the country would likely increase. Ever notice that we see a heck of a lot of gay men abducting and murdering little boys? Don’t be surprised to see more. Only a fool would believe that gay marriage will solve this problem. Just because Jeffrey Dahmer is married to some other gay fellow doesn’t mean Jeff will stop molesting and killing people. So, why does this start?

If you asked John Wayne Gacy, he would tell you it started because he was molested as a child. And do you think Jeff and John are the only ones? If you do, then you need a reality check. And, call me strange, but I’m kinda in favor of protecting our children.

  1. Beastiality is just a step away. After all, animal are property. And, shouldn’t you have a right to use your property how you see fit?

more to come…

1206

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.

Not true. Many of our founders did have a problem with slavery. But, the issue they were dealing with when our country was founded was a departure from English suppression.

Things like this 3/5 clause are political compromises. How else do you think they say “Gosh, I think a black is worth 60% of a white man.” Without writing a reseach paper on the subject, I can guess that lots of factors played into this including (but not limited to) political power, financial power (ability to buy slaves/sway populus), and moral values.

Maybe the people who claim to be “Good Christians” should start getting their information from the bible instead of liberal universities.

You’re exactly right. Some did have a problem with it. But not enough to make an issue out of it. Perhaps legitimately out of fear about making it an issue precluding the establishment of the union. And not enough to prevent them from owning slaves themselves. Bowing to political realities as opposed to attempting to challenge them does not make something right. You never know until you try. And last time I checked, the Bible said nothing about slavery in America.

I thought we were talking about gay marriage here?

In regards to slavery, I am sure it would have been a huge issue getting all the colonies on board with the revolution if slavery was made an issue. So, it wansn’t. But, that’s a different story.

BTW - have you read the bible? I mean the whole thing?[/quote]

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you? But considering that the Bible does not deal with modern history, I would not imagine it talks about America or anything in the last few hundred years.

1207

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

But there are apparently a good number of closeted gays who do and succesffully sleep with their wives for years.

I am not at all talking about “closet gays.” I am talking about those men who call themselves homosexual who still manage to sleep with women.

How does that happen if they are truly homosexual?

Speaks highly to the fact that any gays who are supposededly cured have merely gone into the closet instead of come out ot it.

Wrong!

"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”

According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”

Study doesn’t mean much Zeb. The big hole as addressed is the subjective feeling of the gay having sex with the woman. Fantasy on his part can make sex possible and PERHAPS even satisfy the woman. Of course the study is vague and doesn’t say what satisfying is. No mention of whether it’s the subjective satisfaction of either party or the mere act of sex. Sex once a month? Huh. Seems like the gay guy could get through that ordeal and climb ontop his wife once a month and manage to cumb by thinking of Brad Pitt. Are these ex-gays and ex-lesbians married together. Maybe the wife is thinking of Jennifer Aniston. They’re still together in some sense! Yay. haha. (actually, I’d like to see that link to that CNN pole if you have it. Please. Rarely thinking of someone of the same sex during sex with your opposite sex partner itself does not seem normal). I also have to tell you Zeb that I was a psych major. This is one pyschiatric sutdy. The vast majority of psychiatrists disagree with this guy and view his as a crackpot. The general consensus of the psyhciatric and psychological community is NOT than anyone can become ungay but that people can have heterosexual relationships and complete the act of heterosexual sex through fantasy. After law finals are over and I’m finished with my Florida vacation, I’ll try to dig up my old psych book. Which has not one but a summation of hundreds of studies that take that view. But you will probably chalk this vast body of evidence up to liberal bias and prefer to go with the sole study that you have uncovered.[/quote]

Care to divulge what school you have been attending?

1208

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Wow - I was thinking about Ann when I was writing about you. Sadly, I am sure I am not stupider than you. But, please, continue with the insults. It shows your intellect.

You are unable to see the forest through the trees, brook. You look at only one issue here, when, in fact this issue is about more than men marrying men and women marrying women. The impact of this issue is bigger than you can imagine.

And, don’t call on God. I doubt He would answer you at this stage in your life.[/quote]

You are funny. Sorry about the insults but your statements are illogical. Perhaps if you are saying their is a larger issue as to values and morals, you are right. If you perceive allowing civil unions as immoral and leading to society’s degnerations. But none of your factual assertions follow.

You completely fail to articultate how legally recongnizing unions that already occur will increase the spread of AIDS in the general population(not through increased promiscuity certainly or gay people having sex with straight people) nor how the risky behavior of gay people would raise anyone else’s healthcare rates, nor how letting those who already identify as gay will abuse more children because their relationships are recognized in a legal sense. As far as God goes, I’d worry about your own self.